Strategy isn’t what you think it is

**Nat:** One of the top most requested skills from Powrsuit members is strategic thinking.

And often we think about strategy as being this very big, highbrow, giant, massive future visionary planning and thinking through really complicated ways — like all that really hard strategy stuff.

But there are really, really easy ways to practice strategic thinking regardless of what we do.

We say easy, but actually, while the tools might be easy, the discipline of thinking strategically is really hard to teach.

But it’s something that we can all learn if we’re happy to be a bit vulnerable, put aside our instincts to want to be right and reinforce our current thinking, and try tackling things from a slightly different viewpoint.

So we thought we’d cover that today — a little bit of what we’ve learned over our careers and then in the last couple of weeks teaching a bit of this.

**Kristen:** Yeah, our brains have definitely been in it, because I think women historically haven’t been.

Well, we know historically women haven’t been in rooms where strategy is often formulated or come up with like that. We’ve been excluded from those rooms.

And so there’s always been this mystique around what is strategy, and how can women involve themselves?

And there’s almost not been a playbook to do just that.

So there’s a lot of misconceptions around what strategy is. I think that’s one interesting insight.

And then the other is obviously our unique perspective. And we’ve talked about this quite a bit with how we give people advice or how we mentor people, in that our unique perspective is quite biased. Like, it’s our unique perspective, and we can apply that to strategy and strategic thinking as well.

**Nat:** And it’s very normal.

**Kristen:** Yeah, I agree.

**Nat:** And I think one of the things that comes with the confusion around strategy, and it not being something you tend to do in a very serious, in-a-job-title role until later in your career, is a lot of us think…

I’ve had this conversation so many times, and I remember even at our last startup, a lot of people wanted to be more involved in strategy.

And two things happened.

One, I was constantly amazed with how people overlook everyday strategy because we see it as this big thing that you have to be in a room to do, rather than something that you can just do all the time.

And then the second thing that I found always really fascinating is, of everyone I invited to start thinking strategically, I would say 60% hated it. Sixty percent, when actually faced with what strategic thinking looks like, were like, “Actually, not for me.”

I would rather go back to delivery, to having a really clear, defined task to be able to complete, with very clear, defined success measures.

The coming up with those things and the analysing things and dealing with ambiguity and unknowns and challenging thinking — it often looks to people who don’t enjoy it like going around in circles.

And you often hear people, “I just want to jump to action. I’m action-motivated.”

Strategy isn’t that.

It’s actually putting that stuff to the side and getting really comfortable with digging into things, challenging thinking and not making visible progress in a way that we often do.

We were like ticking things off and feeling like we’re moving forward, because strategy is about moving in the right direction, which takes a lot of analysis.

So those are two things that I’ve seen which led us to the way we have rolled out this latest masterclass and then also ran a workshop yesterday, which we tried some different things in order to get people thinking differently.

So do we want to dig into some of those things first?

**Kristen:** Yes, let’s do it.

I was actually reflecting upon some of our people at our old organisation and thinking, what was it that their need was when it came to being involved in some of the decision-making that went into what we actually did and the direction we were heading?

And I think there’s possibly two things.

The first is that they wanted their unique perspective.

No, I don’t know what they wanted. I’m just guessing.

I’m just wondering if there’s an innate human desire to actually be involved in shaping something.

So I think there’s something there, and the shaping is the hard part, right? Like, there’s an actual process.

And so I think there’s a human desire to go, “I don’t want to just be handed something, but I want to be involved in shaping it.”

**Nat:** That’s fair. And as you get — there’s lots of everyday things, to your point, that they can shape things.

**Kristen:** The second is, I wonder if there’s a misconception again. If you’re not in those rooms or don’t understand what strategy is, is there a misconception that it’s just ideation and they want to be in a space where they can brainstorm?

Is that as simple as that?

**Nat:** Actually, yes. I think there’s two.

I think you — well, I mean, who knows? We actually don’t know the answer.

I think I feel very similar, but slightly different.

I think there is a huge status that comes with strategy. People want to be strategic thinkers.

We throw the words strategy around — strategic planning, strategic this, strategic thinking — when most of it’s not actually strategic at all.

It’s just like, we love to use the word because it feels important, it feels clever.

We know intuitively that the people who are paid the most and in the most senior positions tend to be very strategic, and it is a skill that therefore feels like something that we want to be known for.

And then secondly, I think when it comes to wanting to be involved in decision-making, yes, I think if everyone likes to have control — well, not everyone. A lot of people like to have control and autonomy.

However, there’s a continuum.

So I think most people — and this is, I think, fear and how the world should operate, because not everyone should be involved in strategy or needs to be involved or likes being involved.

That full ambiguity, that kind of early design thinking where it’s like so many unknowns, so many assumptions, so much stuff that we need to really dig into, is hard.

It’s challenging. It takes ages.

Whereas a lot of people actually like to have maybe four or five options presented to them or some level of clarity.

And that’s a whole other stage as well.

So I feel like it’s a huge area.

And I think what we mistake is that all of us want to be involved in the really beginning part.

And actually, most of the time that’s a very certain personality type and skill set that thrives in there, and most people just find it really annoying.

**Kristen:** And the thing that I think ties together the workshop that we did yesterday and the mini masterclass that we delivered to Power Suiters probably two weeks ago now is that we often jump straight to assuming we know what the problem is or what we’re doing here.

And then we’re ideating or developing a solution or figuring out an approach to a solution based on an assumed problem or need.

And I think that’s how to tie together those two things.

I’ll get to — like, you know…

**Nat:** Out of interest, do you actually think — because I don’t think that.

I think people don’t even think about a problem.

Like, I think most of ideation is, “Here’s a cool idea.”

It’s like, “I want to do this thing. I want to redesign our homepage. I want to update our branding.”

They’re not thinking about a problem.

**Kristen:** I think that we’re getting — yeah, and I probably used the wrong words.

I think it’s the need. I think we’re focused on a need, right?

And it’s the same thing with, “I need a promotion. I need recognition. I need a new title. I need that job. I need this website.”

So there’s a need that we’re focused on, and we’re not going — and this, this is what I think we are getting to — is quite often it’s like, “But what is the problem that we’re solving?”

**Nat:** You’re right. Like, I use them interchangeably, but I didn’t mean to.

It’s like, what is the thing we’re trying to do?

Like, you need a promotion. What is the underlying problem to be solved here?

And like, why? What is the actual thing going on underneath?

And so that’s what I loved about tying together what we did yesterday, which was in an influence context, but it was actually about getting under — using the same tool and getting to actually the underlying motivation.

And it’s the same thing with our strategic thinking.

It’s like, what are we even solving?

What are we — what is the actual problem at hand here?

And it’s using the same tool, which we should chat about.

**Kristen:** Yeah.

And I think basically all of this to say, what we’re trying to — if you want to practise strategic thinking, what you have to aim to do with all opportunities in life is move straight out of reactive mode and into response mode, almost.

It’s the idea of slowing down, taking a step back, fighting the instinct to jump to action.

I’ve had a bunch of conversations over the last couple of weeks about how we really tie doing with achieving.

And what that means is that we feel like by ticking off a whole bunch of stuff, we’re achieving a lot.

But actually, when we talk about strategy, there’s two parts to it.

One is moving forward. The other is moving in the right direction.

And often we don’t do that second part and think, “Am I going in the right direction?”

Because we’re so busy trying to take that dopamine hit of achievement, which often is achieving the wrong things — or nothing.

And I say that with those examples because in tech we always laugh.

We always laugh at people who want an app.

We always laugh at people who want a homepage update.

We always laugh at people who want to rebrand because it’s such a common request — a new button, a colour change.

And none of them solve any problems.

Like, no one ever comes with, “Here is this big challenge we’re facing. There’s a customer problem or there’s a growth problem. Here’s all the solutions we could come up with, and here’s what we recommend based on evidence.”

It’s always, “Such and such has had a rebrand. We need a rebrand.”

Or, “If we put my article at the top of the homepage, my…” I don’t know. “It’ll achieve…” What?

**Nat:** I think it’s because probably there are product and design…

**Kristen:** Well, I know it is because there’s product and design people that form a core — what is that? The three legs of the stool.

They form one of the legs of those stools, right?

And I think there’s a very certain way of thinking in that environment that is learned, or some are born with it.

You happen to have strategic thinking as your top five.

But for those that aren’t in those environments or don’t have it innately, it is something that you just pick up on your little bits of experience.

And it could have been that that app actually did genuinely solve a problem, like Uber has solved the transportation problems of the world.

And so you extrapolate the information, you know, not understanding that what they were trying to do was…

Oh, there’s an amazing story about Uber, actually.

And here I am, like, chatting about it, and I didn’t go and do my research of what it is.

But they were trying to get people from point A to point B in the most seamless way possible.

And so it had nothing to do with an app, right?

Like, it just happened to be in the hands of someone and delivered in that way.

But for someone that’s not in that third-leg-of-that-stool way, who hasn’t been formally taught to think that way, or taught by experience to think that way, or have that skill innately, I can see where people get to.

And there’s a level of empathy because you just take what experience and knowledge you have, and you’re trying, and you care deeply about the thing.

It’s just not…

**Nat:** Yeah, we have to.

Yeah, I agree.

It’s, yeah, we — this is what we taught yesterday as well.

We’ll talk about the five whys, but it looks the same.

So Uber was solving a problem of getting people from A to B, and the solution they came up with was an app that had ridesharing.

They could have come up with 100 different ways to solve that, and they probably discounted a bunch of them and implemented a strong strategy.

What it looks like if you’re not used to strategic thinking is, “An app was a good idea.”

And so you go, “Building an app makes you successful.”

And that’s why you see the flood of apps showing up on the app stores.

And even actually, my girlfriend and I laugh about it.

You go to an event these days, you do basically anything these days, you order food and there’s an app.

And we’re like, “The app feels like the absolute worst solution to the problem of me ordering food or navigating around an event.”

It feels cheaper and faster for you to have just put up a one-page website that had the agenda on, or for me to order from a menu.

But that’s exactly — your example is perfect.

A bunch of people would have seen successful apps, and rather than seeing it as a problem that was solved through an app, they think the app itself is the solution to everything.

**Kristen:** I know. I have to say a few things because you’ve just — it’s something that’s so annoying for me these days.

What is the “order from table”?

Oh my goodness, it is so frustrating.

I just want to place my order, even if I have to walk up somewhere and place my order and then sit down.

But I have to scan the QR code and then I’ve got to add payment or download a thing and find the thing.

Oh my goodness. Hate that. Hate it, hate it.

Do not like having to download things at conferences for that same reason.

Just having something else clunk up.

**Nat:** Super temporary.

**Kristen:** Super temporary, yes.

And then I remember us going to a community event thing and they were like, “Oh, let’s develop a new LinkedIn so we can connect with one another.”

And it was this swipey thing.

And I was like, “What is this?”

And I opened it once at the community event and I’ll never open it up again because LinkedIn — like, it’s solved it already.

I don’t know why we’re doing, you know, this.

And then the last thing, which is so annoying — and this is different, different, but same — and I just wanted to vent about it.

When you call up customer service nowadays, this is what happens.

You have a very frustrating tick-box, checkbox conversation with someone on the other end of the phone who isn’t genuinely listening.

They’re just covering a checkbox thing.

So your internet’s down or blah, blah, blah’s down.

Now let’s say we get to the end of that conversation.

Like, we’ve already used so much of our time.

It’s probably been a relatively frustrating experience.

Maybe we finally got somewhere in the end and we just want to hang up and leave, but they are required to go through all these extra steps.

And maybe this is like strategic thinking gone wrong and problem-solving gone wrong.

Like, my problem — I am now solving their problem in them collecting a bunch of data from me and compliance.

Like, they’re like, “So I just want to confirm what we spoke about today and what the problem was today and what we did about it.”

And then they keep me on the phone for a minute after, and I’m like, that’s an example of problem-solving, strategic thinking gone wrong because you’ve just made my life harder and more frustrating.

Have you ever noticed that?

**Nat:** I’ve noticed that.

And I think that’s a brilliant example of how strategy goes awry and how we can all practise it wherever we are in an organisation.

And I think the way you do that is, at a top level, they’ve probably gone, “One of our strategies for this year is to reduce our cost to serve customers.”

And how we’re going to go about doing that is we’re going to add automation.

We’re going to collect more data to make sure that we know what kinds of problems we’re solving, which will probably feed into another strategy around how we improve our product or service to mitigate the biggest problems.

All of that stuff makes so much sense at the top level.

As it moves down, instead of going, “How do we best solve this problem and bring in the context of customer success being a strategy for the business as well?”

It ends up going to, “My thing is I’m going to check off this, this and this to collect the data, and I’m going to ask the questions and I’m going to fill in the report to make sure that we take one thing off,” completely missing the underlying problem, which is we want to improve the customer experience through having faster calls, more data, solve the thing.

And you see all the time.

**Kristen:** On the flip side, these two companies are not current partners of ours — and I think you should be in New Zealand — one New Zealand.

I called 1 NZ the other day and it was the most beautiful customer experience I have had in, I’m going to say, decades.

She answered the phone immediately saying where she was, and it was in New Zealand, which I know is a real bugbear when people offshore customer service and it’s people who don’t understand the context, they don’t all of that.

So she acknowledged she was in New Zealand and then she had full reign to help me.

So she asked really smart — she, you could tell, was a smart, capable person who was trying to solve my problem.

And then she followed up by text afterwards.

She was going to connect me with another department.

And I was like, wow. Customer service.

And this is like — this is where they’ve turned in-depth human customer service into a strategic benefit for the business rather than the cluster.

**Nat:** Yeah, yeah.

**Kristen:** Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

**Nat:** Great.

Okay, well, that’s good.

That’s good.

**Kristen:** And I love that you use that example because that is actually — we can tie this all back to the top.

What was the intent of what we’re trying to do?

What are we trying to solve and how do we get there?

And one of the tools we used for both our workshop yesterday, we’ve alluded to a few times, and then in our strategic thinking, which is really getting to the part of the problem.

What we’re trying to do here is the five whys.

And not in a checkbox-y sense, but actually getting — stopping, like you said, for a minute, and rather than racing to doing, stopping, getting super clear on what is the underlying thing that we are trying to do.

What is the underlying motivation and asking why a bunch of times to get there, and then testing it to be like, if that is solved, is that actually it?

And getting to the heart of it, the core of the onion.

**Nat:** Yeah.

And this is the reason we wrote about it now, New Zealand Two.

And the reason we wanted to highlight it is because this is a topic of conversation amongst the two of us — probably several hours in the weeks leading up to the mini masterclass.

Because we knew we wanted to teach this tool.

We know how powerful it is, but we also know how poorly it is used, and how you can’t teach the thinking behind it. You can only teach the tool.

An example of that — and actually yesterday we had some fabulous examples.

There was a participant up here who went through the exercise.

So the exercise is very straightforward.

You start with whatever your first thing is.

So, like, “I need a promotion.”

And then you ask why a couple of times, five times, three times, one time, whatever.

It’s not about tick-boxing through the number of times. It’s about getting genuinely curious about why you may be thinking that.

So yesterday we asked them to do it with each other.

One of them starts with their thing, the other one asks them why, and so they workshop it together.

And the challenge we gave to the person asking is your job — usually the default for most of us is we want to really support someone.

We want to encourage them.

We want to help them solve the problem that they’ve come to us with.

And actually, the job of asking the five whys is to totally turn that mindset in reverse and really try and almost black-hat it.

“Are you sure this is the right thing?”

“Are you sure this is the right thing?”

“What about this?”

“What if you thought about it this way?”

And really perform the role of helping someone get somewhere very different with their thinking.

Very uncomfortable for a lot of people.

It sits outside — you know, we don’t get enough feedback.

We find sometimes direct conversations confronting.

We tie emotions to our work.

So having that kind of conversation is not something a lot of us practise.

This pair said they got two or three whys in and went, “Yep, we’re good.”

And then because they had time, they kept chatting, and they both said afterwards we ended up somewhere so different because we kind of took the pressure off.

We were trying to be polite to each other, so we didn’t want to jump in with solutions.

And even having the extra five minutes, they were like, “Wow, we would have told you five minutes ago this was the end.”

And by just digging a little deeper.

And I just thought that was such a great example of how we misconstrue it sometimes.

**Kristen:** Well, rush it really, because we gave them that awkward time to get through it.

Which, to your point of not many people loving this part of the process and wanting to opt out, is because it is filled with ambiguity and it is uncomfortable.

And an example of the strategy part in a day-to-day role.

So there are a lot of really personal examples yesterday of what help people felt they needed, and then where they got to was very different.

But for the strategy part of it, it’s the same thing.

You’re in a role and you are responsible for growth.

And so, “I need a new website for this growth.”

And you are vying for resource for that website, and it’s shiny and it looks great and it’s part of brand and it’s, you know, all this stuff.

And so you can justify it in so many different ways.

But if you’re to stop and go through this process, ultimately you’re going to end up at not a new website, probably.

And that’s really hard for people to let go of because then what is true?

One of many options.

You’re right, and you may be, but you might not be.

And I think that’s what’s probably uncomfortable, is you don’t get that — to your point of, like, the achievement is now gone.

And it could be something that is so different from that visual achievement of your time at that workplace.

**Nat:** Yeah, yeah, I agree.

And it’s funny, once you start doing the five whys a lot, you clock it in other people when they don’t so quickly.

And like, I have to bite my tongue a lot because the number of times people come proudly telling me about an output and I’m just like, working back going, “You haven’t moved the needle at all.”

You have focused so much on this output because it feels like a cool thing to do that you haven’t actually tackled anything.

And I just feel like if we could teach that one thing — and actually we can’t — but if people could take that awkward space and really challenge yourself and see success as getting further away from when you started rather than closer, you unlock so much more value.

**Kristen:** And the second part, like, yes, I think you’re correct in that that’s really challenging in itself.

But the second thing that I felt was so impressive yesterday that I think is worth calling out is all of us have egos, and really digging into the five whys often unearths some very uncomfortable emotions.

So, like, the website, for example — that’s a great one. It looks pretty, it is shiny, all of that stuff.

So when you actually do the five whys in that, what it might boil down to is, “I want to look really good for my manager,” or, “I want to be able to tell my friends or showcase this beautiful piece of work that I’ve achieved.”

And that’s your motivation.

It’s actually not about growing the company at all.

You haven’t really considered the best ways to do it.

And the reason I say all that is what I found so impressive yesterday was a couple of people were brave enough in front of everyone to say their underlying need or motivation was actually quite emotionally driven and personally driven.

And I just thought that is the absolute point of this exercise and strategy — is to recognise, of course, we’re all motivated by selfish reasons.

And it helps us unearth them.

It helps us identify them and then attack them or move them away so that we can actually focus on what drives the business forward.

And I just thought there was such a cool example to go, “Bang on.”

So many people aren’t that self-aware and they just think that they’re doing something for the company, but they’re actually doing it for their own interests.

**Nat:** Totally.

**Kristen:** How do you reverse out of that, then?

What do you find?

Because that’s a dead-end point.

You’re like, “Oh, there’s — so we’ve gotten to underlying motivations and needs, and they really aren’t aligned with what we are effectively trying to get,” be it a shared outcome or a positive outcome for, I don’t know, whatever tasks we’re doing.

How do we reverse out of that and start again from…?

**Nat:** I think there’s two things, and it’s a mindset shift.

Firstly, like, I get told this all the time: “How do you start so many businesses? You must have so many good ideas.”

And I immediately stop and go, “I never have ideas. I am not an ideas person.”

I rebel against the concept of ideas.

But somewhere along the line, we’ve all been embedded with this idea of the genius ideas person.

And being an ideas person makes you really valuable and smart.

So all of us, when you look around an office — and this actually came up in yesterday’s workshop as well — when someone said they just get inundated with ideas from people, and all those people, I bet you feel like they’re being super valuable and making an impact, and all they’re doing is adding so much noise and annoyance to someone’s plate.

What we are as problem solvers — when you start a business, if you start with an idea, it is very high likelihood you’re going to fail because your idea could be motivated by any number of things.

Unless it is solving a problem for a group of people, it is going to get no traction.

So strategic people solve problems rather than create ideas.

And the second part of that, which I think really sort of solidifies it: if you ever say, “I have an idea,” hold that idea in.

Because while ideas just exist in the ether and they’re all around us and they aren’t tethered to anything, solutions only exist in context of a problem.

So if you, instead of having an idea, say, “I have a solution,” and force yourself to say, “I have a solution,” then you really need to be able to explain what the problem you’re solving is as well.

And I also recommend for people to only ever have three to five solutions when they first start talking about it, not one.

So if you want to reverse-engineer the process, if you’ve only got one idea, you haven’t gone through it.

As soon as you get to the point that you have a clearly defined problem and three to five solutions, you know you’ve actually really challenged yourself to come up with something that’s going to solve something.

**Kristen:** Love it.

Great advice, Nat.

Thanks.

**Nat:** Yeah, I think that our listeners would all find that really helpful and would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on that.

**Kristen:** Yeah, yeah, we’d like some examples too.

Like, we could workshop some of these over the coming weeks if someone’s got something that they’ve hit a brick wall or an idea that they’re…

And we’re happy to work back through the five whys and sort of explain.

**Nat:** Well, it’s, yeah, it can be challenging to get into someone else’s brain, but yeah, I feel like it is such a — if we could unlock this in the Power Suit network.

And I’m not saying, like, so many people think like this already, and we notice it in workshops we run anyway.

There is always a group who’s like, “Yeah, I’ve already done this, done it in my head, whatever.”

But for everyone who feels like they kind of come up against this brick wall, it will be so much…

You’ll find work so much more fun and so much more rewarding when you can really work through this.

So come to the workshop, come to become a member and go through the five whys with other people.

It’s a really nice way to do it.

**Kristen:** I think a good indication of that is that when we invite people to share their fails with us, I can come up against a lot in my earlier career where I would come up with an idea related to something we needed and it was just that.

And I would feel like my ideas weren’t really listened to, or I didn’t feel slighted, but I was like, “Man, it’d be nice to have a win sometimes.”

And I think that’s what it was.

And so for me to be vulnerable and sharing that, now I can directly tie it to, like, I didn’t think deeply enough about all the different ways we could solve the problem.

And you can see that in a room when you’re trying to crowdsource people’s fails.

Like, they’re really reluctant to either share them, or they don’t have any because they haven’t done deep enough.

**Nat:** Well, and the other thing that I would say with that example, because I think — I mean, like, everyone’s guilty of that.

We’ve all come up with ideas because we’ve seen something cool and shiny or whatever.

Like, I feel like we should just acknowledge that.

Like, it’s not embarrassing to have done that because everyone’s done it.

But I also feel like the win — that concept of needing a win — I think that’s another part of strategy: it’s not about you.

And I think that’s a really hard thing to separate when we are measured on individual performance and we want to be hired, favoured…

And so we see it as an individual.

Like, “If my idea gets accepted, I won and it’s going to make me feel really good.”

There is strategy.

If you’re in a room of people, it’s actually like, “We are solving this problem.”

It doesn’t matter about who came up with the solution.

And actually what you and I do a lot is we build on each other’s, or someone will have something and someone will go the other way.

And at the end, 99% of the time, I couldn’t tell you which one of us came up with it.

And I say that with quotation marks because it’s actually, we weren’t thinking about it.

We were just really focused on the problem and thinking about different ways it worked.

And I’m going back and forth on, “Does this work?” or “What if we tweaked it this way?” and “Does it solve this?”

And I think that’s the separator as well in mindset.

Like, in order to be really good at it, you have to not care about it being your idea.

**Kristen:** And that’s also very hard in this…

**Nat:** Well, especially very hard for someone who’s got competition as their top five strengths.

**Kristen:** And if you work in a competitive environment.

**Nat:** Yeah, exactly. Totally.

And that is, like you said, performance-related and your work and whatever value can be attributed personally.

**Kristen:** So yeah, no, I love it.

**Nat:** All great.

**Kristen:** To find it is more successful when you are a person who’s seen to be contributing rather than the person who keeps coming in with ideas that don’t contribute to a problem.

So it does work better.

It’s just one of those mindset shifts away from cause and effect.

If I come in with this into — it’s a bit more of a long game, but it will be far more successful.

**Nat:** But we don’t need toilets, so we all think we need an idea.

Okay, well, anyone send us your problems, your needs right now and we will workshop this with you.

We’re very open, very accessible.

So do that.

**Kristen:** Check out powrsuit.com and I’m going to carry on great conversations next week.

Feel free to share this with anyone if you’ve got a strategy day coming up or if you’ve got a team meeting coming up.

Flip this as pre-listening for people prep.

**Nat:** Yeah, and set that tone of like…

**Kristen:** Let’s make mistakes.

That’s the other thing.

Gosh, now I’m going on a rant, but I love that idea of starting these workshops with failures.

Like, get into the mode of celebrating things being wrong, because I think that stuff has to happen to open it up.

Otherwise it’s just so hard to switch that mindset.

But anyway, we’ll have more on this in the future.

**Nat:** We will.

Friday afternoon.

We’re like going now.

In half an hour we’re going to still be going.

Okay everyone, we’ll catch you next time.

**Kristen:** Thanks for listening.

Bye.